So, what's the opinion? Should anyone support the Ukraine? Is this a hands off situation? Did we cause the upheaval? Is Putin invading a sovereign nation or just restoring democracy?

Btw, some are arguing that Obama caused this because he wasn't strong enough on Georgia. It'll be interesting to hear what they think he should do now. I'd say that McCain will argue for stronger action. Paul will argue that there's too much action. Palin will say that she could see this coming from Alaska. However, I'm sure that many will argue for increasing the war budget.

That's the fun of living in interesting times. Ya never know what'll happen next.

"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."

It's interesting how the media here has made this into a US v Russia game, when it's really about Europe. You're right (afaik) that the Ukraine has been a Russian dependency. Otoh, and I'm sure you know, world wars have been fought over the resources there. If the Ukraine bends toward the west, it would mean that "the West" would be right up against Russia's borders.

Tricky business this.

"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."

From what I have read the Crimea historically belongs to Russia but was given to Ukraine for being part of Russia for 300 years by Khrushchev. So essentially I think Ukraine should hand over control of that region to the Russians as peace deal to avoid war.

"There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The problem with that is whether people in the Crimea consider themselves Russian or Ukrainian. The argument that 'it used to be part of that country' is true, but might not offer a solution. There's a reason that a country isn't part of another, too. I.e., it's the Ukraine because it isn't Russia.

"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."

Europe and most of the world has been complaining forever about America sticking our beak in all the time. Now that we finally have a POTUS who has taken our combat troops out of Iraq and seems poised to do so in Afganistan, and who also didn't fire rockets into Syria, instead of kudos we get people whining that we should be there to intervene. How about Europe stands up if they think Putin should be stopped? Of course, we would come to their aid if things got nasty, but I would like to see the US stop spending so much money on overseas military and more money here at home.

Yes, I know it is a complicated matter, and that Putin is a remnant from the Cold War which we fueled to the point of insanity, but that is my knee jerk reaction to the matter.

Also, I don't see Putin giving up their naval base-no way no how. I have read that Crimea is autonomous. Maybe it should be given even more autonomy? Split it up like Germany after WWII?

I am NOT supporting Putin but I don't see any point in having a bombed-out Kiev.

Hey, no need to defense. My point was that even if Russians and Ukrainians are as similar as Anglo-USAmericans and Canadians, there must have been some reason that they are not considered the same state. If they were the same, then why are "Russian" troops in the streets? No doubt, I don't think anyone here wants to see a war. But, if Russian troops are needed, then there's at least a chance of bloodshed if not all out civil war. The Ukrainian military did not support the deposed president.

Now, I would agree that ceding the Crimea might prevent some further hostilities. However, I fear being a Chamberlain and thinking that it would end there. The question is whether one state can invade and take over another --and secondly whether that ever accomplishes peace. Maybe the Russians will have better luck than the Americans.

Fwiw, I think that a military response is unlikely. At most, there might be some form of aid; at least, there'll be some form of toothless sanction --imo.

"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."

Steve James wrote:Is that your perspective Michael? Or is it just there for information.

Yah, Steve, for the most part, that's my perspective. I also consider Webster Tarpley's take on these things to be very informative.

Overall, I see what's happening in the Ukraine going back to the 2004 Orange color revolution as part of the soft or cold coups coming from the Brezizinski faction that includes Iran 2009, Arab Spring 2011, Moscow 2011, China 2011, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Other attacks of a slightly different nature, maybe call them hot coups or hot wars instead of color revolutions and proxy wars, were the neo-con wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, really going back to the NATO war on Serbia in 1999. There are different methodologies, but the overall goal is the same.

That goal is to force any remaining countries of any significance to join the Bank of International Settlements and join their central banks to Europe's, and to begin to standardize the cultures of those country's, which takes at least 20 years (that's why we were in Iraq so long and why we'll be at least that long in Afghanistan), almost all of them are Muslim and have resisted cultural exports of the West. The final hurdle is Iran, which requires all of her allies be diminished or destroyed first, such as Syria.

This plan is spelled out in perfect detail by both the Brzezinski faction in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard and by the neo-con faction's Project for a New American Century's publication of Rebuilding America's Defenses. They list the countries that have to be taken over in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa, almost all of which has occurred, apparently in planned sequence. Brzezinski is soft coups, color revolutions, drone attacks, and proxy wars. Neocons are all about the full- on, military invasions. Despite their differences in method, the end goals are identical: integration of the world's central banks and natural resources into a standardized management system with the Anglo-American Establishment (Wall Street and City of London) at the top.

Although Russia and China have been integrated into the BIS and WTO, there is still an Anglo-American agenda to threaten these countries militarily, obviously using NATO's encirclement and missile programs to menace Russia and something similar seems to be happening in the Pacific with new US long range bomber bases in places like Guam.

The Anlgo-American Establishment's actions to destabilize Ukraine are an attack on Russia, especially for Putin and Lavrov defying them in regards to Syria.

===============================================================================================================Several things seen in the 20th century preceeding WW2 appear to be happening now:1929 international financial crisis creates economic problems that foster promotion of fascist ideologies and regimes2008 international financial crisis creates economic problems that foster promotion of fascist ideologies and regimes. This is obvious now in the Ukraine, Italy, Michigan (Gubernatorial dictatorial powers used to crush unions and seize assets, pensions, etc), and US Tea Party being anti-union, a hallmark of fascism.

Multiple military alliances create potential for World War as successive countries are dragged in, a la WW1 and WW2.

Failure of League of Nations prior to WW2 seems to be mimicked by Ban Ki Moon's behavior toward Syria in recent Geneva 2 talks. He appears to be a lapdog to NATO despite Russia and China not going along with an attack on Syria.

Rise of fascist regimes leads to more and more bellicose behavior, echoing Hitler's "duty to protect" of the Sudatenlad seen in the rationale to attack Syria coming from US Sec. of State Kerry. Humanitarian no fly zones are simply Hitler's pre-WW2 method repackaged.